Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 9, 2015 9:30pm-10:01pm PDT

9:30 pm
>> >> looks like we are on. and good morning, today is june 9, 2015 and welcome to the finance committee of the san francisco county transportation authority, my name is john avalos and i am the chair of the committee and our clerk is steven stamos and i would like to announce the sfgtv staff who are broadcasting today and jim smith. could you read the first
9:31 pm
>> roll call. >> avalos. >> present. >> campos. >> present. >> cohen. >> present. >> kim. absent. >> mar. >> present. >> we have a quorum. >> okay let's go on to the next item please. >> consent calendar, items two and three, comprise the consent calendar, they are routine, and the staff is not presenting if a member objects any of them may be removed and considered separately. >> okay. we have two items that are on here, i don't see any comments from colleagues and go on to public comment and, anybody member from the public that would like to comment on items two or three, seeing none, we will close public comment. and motion to approve these items. >> from supervisor compose, and seconded by mar and we will take that with a roll call vote. >> consent calendar, avalos. >> aye.
9:32 pm
>> campos. aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> passes. >> item four, state and federal legislative up date and this is an information item. n >> good morning, pleased to be here mark watts and the wear ors band outside and good luck on game three and so there are three measures that we are adding to the bill matrix, and all for a watched position and i could cover more briefly and unless you have questions and then the staff had a couple of items that they wanted me to and that were not specifically matrix issues but catch you up on a few of the measures. >> and the first measure is ab, and 318 and by chiu and it is on page seven and it deals with a problem that the la metro has identified and that is the storage of lost or unclaimed
9:33 pm
bicycles, and they are asking for a pilot program, to be available state wide, to for the return, and, it did pass the assembly, and it is in the senate and it has not been set for a committee yet and it has, and it has run into the questions about the, and whether it is, and it is appropriate to move so we wanted to watch it for now, and rather than stake out a position, ab 1360 i is on page 19. and this deals with tnc's desiring to allow split share, or split fares in their operation of their vehicles. and of the cpuc has taken the position and notified them that this is inappropriate and because the puc does believe that these are really closer and these uber and lyft is
9:34 pm
closer to a charter party carrier and there is a restriction in state law that prohibits split fares or reduced fares within a vehicle and this law or this bill will exempt tncs from that puc regulation. and allow smaller fares for individuals in a split share or a split fair circumstances. sorry. >> what item is that? >> that is ab1360, on page 19. and the final bill to bring to your attention is ab 254 by allen on page 27. and this is a legislative alternative to something that the administration had hoped to do in the budget, and it is, it is a process to stream line and
9:35 pm
relinguis h the state and instead of having to bring it to the capitol for a special bill to authorize it after the commission has reviewed it and this will say except for the interstate segments or the major in the regional roads, if the locality and the department to an agreement they can go to the commission and the stream line process will apply and we think that there may be applicable and we will monitor that as well. >> okay. >> moving on, one of the most interesting bills that self-help counties are following this year is ab 194 by mr. frasier that deals with the toll lanes and hot lanes and this bill is sponsored by the self-help county coalition and again this is another, legislative measure that was in competition for a while with an aappropriate that the administration sought to do as the budget trader bill and both
9:36 pm
houses rejected the approach and mr. frasier's bill is the last bill standing and it cleared readily through the assembly. and it is pending referral and the senate rules likely to go to the senate transand in the meantime there are discussions going on and there have been amendments put forward most notably by the transform, which is the ngo that is supports the transit operations and other forms of transportation. and they are saying that when in the case, and in a corridor where there are excess revenues where you are using it to adjust the traffic and it may occur and the administration would like to have is an expenditure plan and the pill conceives of the plan, that deals with maintenance ongoing and rehabilitation preservation and activities, and the transformed proposal will be also to include as eligible expenditures transit service and active transportation. and i am not sure where the
9:37 pm
administration is going to come out on that and so this will be an issue that will be decided in the senate transportation committee, in addition, the committee consultants are in discussions with the author's office and one area that has emerged is how to treat low and moderate income drivers, who have access to or who would have access to hov lanes under this bill. and to in the case where, it is a hot lane, or a managed lane that requires a transponder what is the right way to pay for or reimburse for the cost of it and la county has two roadways where they have a system in place that offsets them for the certain categories of the motorists so this will be an issue that will be worked out in transportation committee
9:38 pm
as well. and i have talked about this bill in the past but as a reminder this measure does have language particularly to the bay area that allows the local agencies, and as defined, which includes the cmas in the bay area as distinct from the ntc and the mp o it has the authority to develop the systems but under a language and mr. frasier's bill they have to do it in this area, in mtc would have to do it in culttation jurisdiction and to operate under the operations and it would be unders the ages of mtc and so that is the framework in the bill now that the self-help county coalition is supporting and endorsing. senator bell's major transportation funding program is on the senate floor, and for
9:39 pm
parlimentary reasons and it remains eligible and the date to remove out of the senate was last friday and however because this has an emergency clause in it it is not subject to that and emerged in the last week or so, there had been a thought about trying to embed the transportation funding solution into part of the budget process. and that was decided not to be the approach, and basically the speaker's office and the protem's office have indicated that they would like to address the transportation package, including senator bell's bill later in the session and probably in august. and i bring that up just to let you know that mtc is seeking several amendments that we would make you aware of them and one is that there is an incentive program of 5 percent of the revenues, off of the top, and they are set aside for new self-help counties but not existing self-help and mtc is saying, no we should broaden that using it, and so that the current counties that may be
9:40 pm
seeking in addition or an extension would also be eligible tap into that pot, and this could be, one of the more contentious issues because there are strong feelings by legislators on the side of the so-called aspiring counties that don't have the current sales taxes and then so i am not sure how it will turn out and it is an interesting discussion. one helpful amendment that i have come across is that while a lot of the state money is going into the shop program which is the highway operation and the preservation program, one of the categories there is operational improvements and they want to clarify and mtc would like to clarify that indeed, the money can go for system operation, and management, and not just into preservation. a little bit more flexibility for the kinds of projects that are needed in the con guested areas of the state.
9:41 pm
and as a technical amendment, and there are also asking the author to consider making the five-year program his bill, permit rather than a five year sunset. and one of the measure, set, the staff asked me to bring to your attention, is ab 40, we have spoken about this in the past and this started off as a prohibition of the tolls on the golden gate bridge as it passed through at december assembly and so any of the bridges that allow the prejudice the bike, and it would not be able to impose a state policy as opposed to a local policy. that is . >> just a question on the 1560, the bill around chartered party
9:42 pm
carrier of passengers, and the individual fare exemption, did our position evolve on that? or has it always been a watch position >> it has been a watch, the bill has some what evolved if i recall the history.st, wondering if you know, if we are this legislation is coming, in the middle of it is coming before the city is really made a decision, about how to incorporate the tnc and the over all transportation plan and it seems like, we are getting a foot in the door saying how the dncs will operate, before we actually have a global plan about really how they should be participating, it seems that the verdict is still out on that. >> okay. >> and i think that this legislation kind of, you know, pushes, you know, the certain type of participation on our streets, that necessarily has not been approved by the mta.
9:43 pm
and has not been waited on, in very deep level by policy makers like the board of supervisors and transportation authorities. and so i would like, and your position is watched something that makes a lot of sense but i could also you know, even swing to you know a no position as well. and because we have not really gone through a correct process and this is putting something, in the middle of the process that we have not created yet. >> i understand that. >> yeah, i know. >> just a comment. >> yeah. >> my colleagues have anything to add to that? and we can move on. >> okay. >> so, i did have a question about a couple of pieces of legislation. >> okay. >> so there is four from anthony from the central valley on slowing the speed down around the school zones, and i know that we are supportive of sb 564 on page 28, and then
9:44 pm
there is three other ones one is a technical one, and sb 595, and there is another one that is dealing with distances from the schools. >> right. >> and then the last one, sb 698 out of the funding from the cap and trade to fund the school safety zone project and all three of those are a watch and i am wondering if you could give us a background on the politics of those. >> well, certainly i don't have the bill number, but the one that deals with the distances has been made into a two year bill and the sponsors and the authority will be working with the department of transportation. and uniform manual, folks, to see if there is a pathway for that. >> the other loans i mean taken as a whole, in mr. canella has long tried to provide more safe travel around the schools, for
9:45 pm
the benefit of the pedestrians and bicyclists. and i, think that the bills that you cited are likely to move forward as is. with the having set aside the one measure, for the further work. >> okay. >> and thank you. >> commissioner kim? >> thank you. >> thank you, i just had a brief question. and i am not sure if you went over it, but it has been on the roster for i think that the last three months and this is just on ab 528 and i was just wondering if you could give any up date on where the discussion is at on this bill? >> i am not recalling it by number. >> ab 528 is the san francisco bay area rapid district strike prohibition. >> from baker? >> oh, yeah. >> those are part of the employees. >> right, i am sorry. >> and that is not going to
9:46 pm
proceed this year, or next year. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. no other things on the roster we can go on to, and thank you for your presentation. >> thank you. >> we can go on to the public comment and any members of the public that would like to comment and the floor is yours. >> (inaudible)
9:47 pm
>> thank you. >> no one else from the public that would like to comment. >> seeing none we will close public comment. >> if we can have a motion to approve. >> i move --. >> that is an information item. >> okay, great. >> and next item. >> item 5, recommend awarding a 3-year professional services contract with an option to extend for two additional one year periods to vavrinek trine and day co in an amount not-to-exceed $300,000 and to authority the executive director, to negotiate the contract pavement in terms. this is an action item. >> good morning, deputy director for finance administration, what i have before you is a request to work on track two, and for the audit
9:48 pm
services and the physical policy prescribes as the transportation authority should undergo an audit each year, and on march 13th, we issued an rfp and on april 22nd, we received, three proposals. and from three qualified audit funds on may sixth, we selected each and we had interviews and the panel consisted of the transportation authority staff and we fund the interviews and the criteria and we would like to award the contract to vavrinek and on their experience they are auditing the santa clara and transportation and the golden gate bridge and the transbay joint powers and the owninger county transportation authority and along with alamena county and we felt that the wealth of experience and a fresh set of eyes looking over the financial
9:49 pm
statements and the information would be a good change for this coming fiscal year. we have also proposed a ten percent gde requirement, and they had come in with the meeting this requirement and we will be assigning the work to a dbe certificated, vendor. in and this contract will be funded with the prop k funds and the federal and the state funds and possibly the regional funds, depending on the type that they are performing, in addition the cac, was briefed on this item and they voted on a motion of support and with that, i have a representative and they will answer any questions and i am more than happy to answer any questions for this item. >> thank you. i don't think that we have any questions. >> thank you. for your presentation. and you work on developing the proposal. >> looking like the public comment and any member of the public that would like to comment? >> seeing none, we will close
9:50 pm
public comment. >> and colleagues could i have a motion to --. >> i move approval of this item. >> and seconded by commissioner kim and roll call vote. >> on item 5:00, commissioner avalos. aye. >> campos absent. >> mar. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >>, and item passes. >> next item please. >> item 6, recommend increasing the amount of the professional services contract with parsons brinckerhoff by $224,600 not-to-exceed $596,000 for planning and engineering services for the 19th avenue, review project, and the terms and conditions, and this is an action item. >> good morning, liz bryson with the transportation planner, and also wearing a hat as sfmta contract manager for
9:51 pm
the 19th avenue, motion view project, and today i will cover just a little bit of a history of the 19th avenue, project's purpose and the tsa role in it and talk about the request before you today and so as the background, many of you know remember between 2012 and 2014 we conducted a feasibility study, and considering some of the pretty substantial and exciting changes to the mocean view and 19th avenue and one of the big rationales for looking at major changes was the major development that has been approved at park merced and tripling the density there and as part of the agreement they are committed to making an investment for the 19th avenue and the m that is valued at 70 million through the feasibility study we considered several options for grades separating the costings of the mocean view with the 19th avenue and by considering taking it either over or under the street, and
9:52 pm
near the galleria and the park merced and in march of 2014, we concluded the feasibility study and having developed several options and identified one that we found to be the highest performing to advance into the subsequent phase of work and additional questions that we wanted to answer, in the phase of work that we are now in. and so this new phase we have been calling the preenvironmental and we need to prepare a document, called a study report and the project development support package and this is the first stage in preparing a project, that effects the state owned right-of-way and as we move to the phase, there was agreement between sfcta and sfmta that sfmta would take over the lead role of the project and sfcta would be collaborating on the multiple fronts and including lending me as well as serving as a procuring agency for the effort. and about a year ago we
9:53 pm
conducted a competitive procurement and selected parsons for this phase of the project it has about a year and we have made strong progress, and cal trans, has engaged as we are having the meetings and anticipating being able to submit our draft, psr package some time this summer, and however, after a year, there are a few additional scope items that we see and we need to invest in, in this phase and that is subject of this request, the main rationale is twofold, i made the level assumption that the level of engineering work that haded been conducted was going to be adequate to carry directly into the psr process and what we learned is that we needed to make some changes to that work to get to a set of plans profiled in the cross sections that can go into that package that is the major addition, and in it and the second piece of
9:54 pm
the addition has to do with wanting to take another look at the southern part of the project study area, and this is near the park merced and the omi neighborhood between randolph street and the park merced at this point, we are very interested in doing some conceptual work of additional option that will take the m, underground and there is several reasons that we think that it is important to do this now, and one is that we think that it is going to open up the phasing opportunities to be able to put forward the part of the project on the aggressive time line that we need to for the development time line and a second reason is that we think that there is an opportunity to minimize the community, impacts and a third reason is that the more that we look at the constructbility of building a bridge over the right-of-way by lowering the roadways, and that will be a substantial cost driver for the project. and so the attachment to the memo and the scope in in
9:55 pm
addition and more detail as well as the rationale. and the plans and programs, committee next week will be considering prop k to fund this work and i have kept today's up date focused on what we need to do to continue the technical work, but we are anticipating our next major round of out reach somewhere in the fall to wintertime frame and i would be happy to do a thorough up date on the project at that time. with that i will conclude my presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, you covered a lot of ground there. >> very impressive. and i appreciate you working with my office on the alternative for the m, through the omi, or over to the omi from the park merced i think that is, really important, to consider what the impacts are going to be there and so that is an ongoing effort and so i appreciate that work. >> commissioner mar. >> expressing one of the bits of information that you rattled off was a state own bridge? where is the bridge?
9:56 pm
>> sure. i was told that there might be a question so i did bring a visual if we can get the screen up. so this shows the study area if you look in the top right this is the south west corner of san francisco, and the location of the bridge that was proposed in the feasibility study was crossing from fox to ran dal right here. and the idea was that to build this bridge you would lower the state highway so that the bridge would go sort of gradually mark merced to randolph street and so that bridge would be crossing the state right-of-way and of course, 19th avenue is i am not talking through the mic, the highway about 72,000 vehicles per day that cross on that road and so the challenge of needing to disrupt the traffic to actually get in there and build it, is one of the many things
9:57 pm
why we think that it is good to look at this additional option. >> okay. no other questions, here. and thank you for your presentation. and we look forward to seeing the actual, you know, the next you know, the deeper presentation from that. >> and so the public comment is now opened on item number six and any member of that public that would like to comment. >> seeing none we will close. >> and colleagues if we could have a motion to approve? >> i move approval. >> and seconded by commissioner kim? >> and we will have a roll call vote? >> same house same call. >> item passes. >> thank you. >> next item please? >> item 7, recommend adopting the propose ad fiscal year, 15, 16 annual budget and work program and this is an action item. >> deputy director, for the administration, and what you have before you is the action item to adopt the proposed
9:58 pm
fiscal year, 15/16 annual budget and this item was brought to you for a preliminary review last month, and what has happened from this point from then to this point is that we have updated the numbers, and we have updated the numbers by 21,554 dollars, and this is a net change from additional revenue sources we have received and we have received the commitment of up to 200000 dollars from sfmta and the planning department. and $100,000 each, for the sf champ, and san francisco, demand forecast modeling and what this 100,000 dollars from each of the agencies will help to contribute with the care and the maintenance and the up date of the champ model and we are, we will be able to implement the new relevant, features and reporting tools and a much, much, more. and now, this comes out at a crucial time since the state's planning and programming and monitoring sb 45 funds for this
9:59 pm
fiscal year is to be received for the transportation and we have received, 400,000 for this type of funding but because of where the state is, we will not be receiving any, this allows us to shift other funds that we have, the federal surface transportation programming, and three percent grants, and we will be able to save these funds, since we are receiving the additional contribution, from the two agencies and be able to save these for the future projects and the future upcoming projects in this coming year or future physical years. ei also would like to, we also have a presentation from last month and commissioner campos requested additional information regarding one of the line items in the budget. and i would like to bring your attention to page 7 of the powerpoint presentation. and this represents a pie chart
10:00 pm
of the prop k sales tax capitol budget expenditure and it is $135 million and he specifically asked for what pieces of this and what, what are the funds going to? and as you can see from this, chart, 25 percent of it is going to the sfmta vehicle, procurement, and ten percent is going to the radio communication system project. and the transbay terminal, and the cal train receives ten percent and the brt will receive 7 and parkway will receive 7 percent and all of the other projects will receive the remaining, 41 percent and that includes, street resurfacing, and the state of good repair and the muni forward. and for you these expenditures represent and anticipates 53 percent of future alloca
left
right